On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2015-06-25 10:01:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The problem with the query analogy is that it's possible to tell whether > >> the query is active or not, by looking at the status column. We need to > >> avoid a situation where you can't tell if the wait status is current or > >> merely the last thing waited for. > > > Well, that's what the 'waiting' column would be about in the proposal I'm > > commenting about. > > To do that, we'd have to change the semantics of the 'waiting' column so > that it becomes true for non-heavyweight-lock waits.
If we introduce a new view like pg_stat_wait_event as mentioned above, then we can avoid this problem, existing 'waiting' in pg_stat_activity would mean same as it mean today and new column 'waiting' in pg_stat_wait_event could indicate the waits for non-heavyweight-lock. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
